XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: noway@nowhere.com   
      
   On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   > On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >> On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>> On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>> On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> {snip}   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> A couple of points that need clarifying:   
   >>>>>   - Government does not have authority over individuals, it has   
   >>>>> been delegated authority /from/ individuals.   
   >>>>>   - That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose,   
   >>>>> the powers and authority of the individual.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Regarding obligations:   
   >>>>>   - The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that   
   >>>>> is to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has   
   >>>>> been legally and justly delegated.  No more, no less.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation   
   >>>>> has been delegated to government.  Therefore, _every_ individual is   
   >>>>> equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.  It is up   
   >>>>> to the people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g.   
   >>>>> it could be that all serve in the armed forces for some period of   
   >>>>> time, and/or individuals are obligated to financially support the   
   >>>>> maintenance and execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or   
   >>>>> ....). If an individual refuses their obligation, they are subject   
   >>>>> to punishment or removal from society.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> That's one example.  Since they are few and defined, what is the   
   >>>> exhaustive list of obligations?   
   >>>   
   >>> For us, US Constitution.   
   >>   
   >> So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the   
   >> general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are   
   >> obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?   
   >   
   > No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for the   
   > welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated to   
   > government.  Our government, using legislative authority it doesn't   
   > have, created the SS welfare program.   
   >   
   > This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General   
   > Welfare clause.  It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the nation   
   > (government), not the people.  Individuals have no authority over   
   > others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and   
   > necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.   
   >   
   >>>>> Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We have always agreed on that.  Where we disagree is the scope of   
   >>>> government's delegated authority over individuals.   
   >>>   
   >>> If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can   
   >>> authority over another be delegated to government?  It can't, ergo   
   >>> government has no authority over individuals.   
   >>   
   >> Let me rephrase.  We agree no individual has authority over another.   
   >> Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly   
   >> delegated to the government.   
   >   
   > If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.  Since we don't   
   > agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.   
   >   
   > Take your above example of SS.  You argue that it is just and authorized   
   > via the General Welfare clause.  In order to do so, you must assume that   
   > an individual DOES have authority over another (in that they can compel   
   > one person to provide for the welfare of another AND that you can compel   
   > that individual to provide for the welfare of their self).   
      
   My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the   
   military draft).  In both cases, neither of us assumes an individual has   
   authority over another.  Instead, we assume an authority has been   
   delegated to the government (in my case, providing for the general   
   welfare, and in your case protecting the sovereignty of the nation) that   
   justifies the government requiring the individual to do something that   
   other individual has the authority to require.   
      
   Where we disagree is the scope of has been delegated to the government.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)